Is Iraq Another Vietnam?
Whether Iraq is another Vietnam has become a hot topic on Capitol Hill and
elsewhere. (While that long war still seems fresh in my mind I have to remind
myself that those under the age of fifty have little or no personal
recollection.) In my view the analogy may be flawed—but that doesn’t mean that
there are no relevant lessons to be drawn from that experience.

The National
Liberation Front (usually called, even in the New York Times, the racist
pejorative "Viet Cong") in south Vietnam was huge, well trained and disciplined
in a decades long tradition of resistance against earlier French and Japanese
occupiers. They had the support of the majority of the population, reaching into
virtually every neighborhood and hamlet.

As a result of
a partial victory against the French in 1954 north Vietnam was an independent
state, closely allied with, and receiving substantial material assistance from,
the Soviet Union.

U.S. forces
had to tread more lightly than they would have liked in attacks on the north
because of the Soviet presence. In the south the attempt to defeat the majority
turned into a war of attrition that eventually exacted unacceptable political
costs to the U.S. government. A mass antiwar movement in the U.S. helped make
that price too dear for America’s rulers.

There is
nothing comparable to the National Liberation Front in Iraq today. Nor is there
a Soviet Union; the USA is the sole superpower. Those factors emboldened the
right wing ideologues of the present administration to pursue a thinly disguised
project of Empire. Iraq was to be the showcase of a new, modestly named, Bush
Doctrine.

The peoples of
Iraq may not yet have a force like the NLF. But I do have to agree with many
observers that the insurrectionary events of the past week are eerily
reminiscent of the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam.

The U.S.
eventually retook the positions lost to the NLF during that campaign. But Tet
was a great turning point in the Vietnam war. That’s when it became clear to
sections of the U.S. Establishment, as well as millions of Americans back home,
that there was no chance of any kind of acceptable "victory" in Vietnam. U.S.
participation on the ground dragged on another five years but never recovered
from their nominal defeat of the enemy during Tet.

Help Wanted: An Opposition
We have not yet seen signs of serious rifts over Iraq in ruling circles. Nor has
a mass antiwar movement resembling the Tet era yet emerged in the U.S. We
haven’t even seen much success for self-proclaimed "peace candidates," such as
Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy in 1968.

This morning’s
Los Angeles Times provides a fair assessment of the presumptive Democrat
challenger to Bush,

"John F. Kerry
is assembling a network of foreign policy advisors more hawkish than most
Democrats but more skeptical of military solutions in the struggle against
terrorism than the team surrounding President Bush...

"...insiders
believe those with the most influence on the presumptive Democratic presidential
nominee tend to be advisors who support the forceful use of military power,
including in Iraq, yet place a much higher priority than Bush and his team on
maintaining support among allies.

"Early
speculation about who might serve as Kerry's secretary of State centers mostly
on candidates who fit that description: Richard C. Holbrooke and Samuel R.
"Sandy" Berger, former top officials in the Clinton administration; Sen. Joseph
R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee;
and, more distantly, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)

"‘I think the
mantra of the Democratic thinkers is, 'Together if possible, alone if absolutely
necessary,'’ said James P. Rubin, a former senior Clinton official who is
joining the Kerry campaign as a top foreign policy advisor."

This explains
why the main "opposition" candidate tried to talk mostly about jobs and budget
deficits during this week of comparisons to Tet.

The choice is
clear:

If you favor
the sole superpower going it alone to build an empire subjugating other nations,
vote for Bush.

If you favor a
U.S. policy giving a piece of the action to junior partners in imperialism while
carrying out joint operations to subjugate other nations, vote for Kerry.

If you are
like me and don’t feel like supporting either of these options then I urge you
to ignore this farce. Instead let’s concentrate on building a
labor component
of a needed antiwar movement. Let’s start building a future
genuine opposition through the Labor Party.

Feel Good Of the Week—Wal-Mart
Loses Vote
While unions have had little success in organizing Wal-Mart operations they have
been a thorn in the side to America’s biggest employer expanding into some
communities. In Inglewood, California Wal-Mart decided to not accept no from
city officials to development plans. Using the state’s "democratic" ballot
initiative laws they took their case to the voters. The Walton gang spent big
bucks during the campaign. Unions lined up support from not only four of the
five members of the city council; they also brought in big names such as Jesse
Jackson and Maxine Waters. In the end voters decided to pass up "where America
shops," by a 2-1 margin.